S3E17: Partnership Building: How to Navigate Deconstruction as a Couple When One Person Starts the Deconstruction Process Earlier, with Nicki and Stephen Pappas

We did it! We just released our 100th episode!

And we could not have a more fitting episode than with Nicki (@broadeningthenarrative) and Stephen Pappas. Nicki and Stephen answer the question:

What happens when one person in a partnership begins the deconstruction process before the other partner?

This can be a really intimidating, vulnerable process for a lot of folks, and Nicki and Stephen talk about their process of simultaneously navigating exploration, discovery, hope, grief, and fear of abandonment. We talk about: 

Function of Dreams Within the Church (3:00): “Last week, we talked about the unique challenges of identifying and pursuing a life dream when you grew up in an Evangelical, Mormon, or Pentecostal context, or Empish, E M P. In these Empish contexts, women support the dreams of their husbands […] And then husbands support the quote dreams of the larger church, which is really dictated by the pastor and the broader goals of the American Christian church, often supporting white nationalism and other questionable conservative agendas.” Julia contextualizes how ‘dreaming’ functions within the Church. It exists in a hierarchal system that mirrors that of the patriarchy and is ruled by it. Jeremiah then adds the context of dreaming within the deconstruction process: “This [EMPish Communities] is not a context that fosters dream development individually nor relationally […] Some of it is super exciting and magical. Some of it is downright gut-wrenching, especially while trying to do all of this healing work in a partnership with someone who is deconstructing and healing in different ways.” Being able to dream while moving through the deconstruction process is incredibly challenging, as a whole new world and way of thinking has been opened up, however, this presents unique issues within a partnership. 

Jesus: The Foundation of a Marriage (18:00): “I want to acknowledge how much it shakes a couple that your very foundation is no longer that foundation. […] The language you've entered the covenant and our sand symbolize, like here's the white sand on the bottom. This is Jesus. Here's his brown sand and my blue sand. Swirling together, becoming so enmeshed because the two become one, the whole reason you're joined together, the whole reason you were attracted to each other, the whole reason you decided to marry was Jesus. That was the foundation. That's the thing you found that you loved about each other. And so when that is gone. What do you have?” Nicki describes how deconstruction shakes the very foundation EMPish marriages are formed on, which is Jesus. Once Jesus is removed from the equation, and thus from the foundation, it is challenging to build a new foundation not based on biblical principles. 

Deconstruction is Disorienting (23:00): “My whole bearings are off. Like what I believed about the world is not the reality and what I believed about Christianity or about this life or the afterlife or God is not what I thought it was. And it's just like really disorienting. Yeah, I think a lot of it would come back to if what I had always believed the Bible taught, and now it's being questioned, that would be a really hard conversation, because then it's like, that's the last firm foundation. Cause if I let this go, then what is there?” Stephen talks about losing the foundation Christianity provides and profoundly speaks about a common feeling most folks who are deconstructing experience, which is disorientation. It is a confusing experience to realize a majority of ideas you built your life upon are not right, or do not resonate anymore. Deconstruction affects every element of our lives from our profession, our relationships, our friendships, and more. Julia then synthesizes upon what Stephen says: “That when folks often and I can relate to this move through deconstruction we move through deconstruction, taking this quote-unquote liberal or progressive lens to, to the Bible and to Christianity, so you still have that foundation, that foundation just looks different, and you have new values coming from that same foundation, and at some point for one or for both of you, that foundation eroded, and and and you couldn't fall back on that in the same way you would use the language of disorientation, great language. It also sounds like destabilizing in a literal and a figurative sense.” Julia talks about how attempting to apply a progressive lens to EMPish values causes them to fall apart, and once that progressive lens is applied it is nearly impossible to unsee. 

Non-Monogamy (37:00): “I don't think that love is a finite resource. And so people who will say they're not monogamous as a lifestyle choice like they choose to be this way. And for other people, it felt like another coming out of, okay not only am I queer, but this is also like who I am and I've been shamed. There's a stigma about that. Not just in the church. There's a larger culture built around monogamy, you know, so just that whole thing there. But again, I embrace this part of myself, even if like, you know, I have not explored it. We haven't opened our marriage. That kind of thing, but I can embrace that part of myself and stop shaming that part of myself and be grateful for that part of myself and the capacity of love that gives me for humans.” Nicki discusses the larger cultural perception of non-monogamy in and out of the Church. The Church has no room for dreaming, and thus has no room for folks exploring their sexuality and coming into their sexuality later in life. It takes active communication and generosity to have these discussions with a partner, as deconstruction is a foundation-shaking process from which new dreams and challenges arise. 

Dogmatic Beliefs (40:00): Jeremiah poses the question: “Stephen, as you've been watching Nikki kind of make some of these acknowledgments begin to talk about identifying as queer, what does this look like in real-time? I'm also curious, you know, what are some things that you've begun to explore about yourself as well? Related to or not related to sexuality?” Stephen then responds: “A big change for me has just been not being so dogmatic in my beliefs. Anymore or trying to not be, and a lot of that has been because of the journey we've been on and just the nature of changing beliefs. So it's like if I was off before, then I could be off about whatever it is now. So not to try to hold things so tightly, so dogmatically […] I just try to actually get to know myself better and like who am I really and why do I do the things I do? And why do, why do these things happen to me? Why do these things that happen affect me this way? And what are some tools I can put in place to help me try to live from a more centered and grounded place and not just my instinct, but from my true essence? And so that's still a long process for me to go, but that's been really helpful for me as well.” The concept of unwavering belief is instilled in folks within EMPish communities from the moment they are born, and it is a challenging thing to begin to question things within the Church. Opposing change, differing opinions, and having absolute loyalty is the foundation of EMPish Churches, and it is why deconstruction so often leads people to be ostracized from their communities of origin. Stephen highlights one of the many benefits of not being dogmatic about beliefs, which is gaining the ability to ask questions, to think about actions, and to think about emotions. 

The Myth of Scarcity (46:00):  “I think too, so much of my journey too, has been detaching from the myth of scarcity. And so then I can engage in a conversation, like we may never open our marriage, right? Like I can accept that that may never happen. And like I've told Steven, there's not a timetable for this. There is no scarcity. There's not an urgency. So I think that when we can approach a conversation like this or any other potentially charged conversation. Believing the best about each other. You know, like I believe the best about this person.

I'm not going to assign, you know, nefarious motives or think that he's trying to keep me from growing or from freedom and have a ton of compassion for realizing that what I'm putting out there completely. You know, goes against this whole thing and has the groundedness that comes from saying, there is enough, there is enough time. There are enough resources. There is enough love. There is more than enough. And I think that that's a huge game changer, just not operating from scarcity, because I'll say, like, we had a conversation where I said, I married so young out of scarcity mindset. I married because I was told it doesn't get better than Steven.” Nicki highlights on of the greatest achievements of the Church, which is convincing folks that the scarcity myth is real. When folks are encouraged to get married right out of college and to live within prescribed gender roles while only “ideally” dating the person they’re going to marry, it creates the perception that dating and romance are finite experiences. This idea is then carried on into other aspects of life, including communication, and it stifles conversations because of the fear of running out of time. “And I appreciate what you said about having the conversation without urgency. I'm thinking about what I wish I had done differently when I was married and conversations around queerness and opening the relationship were conversations that I did not handle well. And one of the reasons, probably the primary reason that they didn't go well is because I came to those conversations with my ex with so much anxiety and uncontained sadness about what I had lost that I wasn't able to have The generosity that so clearly exists between the two of you because I couldn't envision life without this need met.” Julia offers an example of how the myth of scarcity affected her previous marriage and how if that had not been present the conversations may have gone differently. 

Relationship Anarchy (54:00): “This is written about kind of in the poly community, but I think it's applicable to every relationship, this idea of relationship anarchy and relationship anarchy is basically this idea that your relationship can serve any function really that it wants to […] maybe the function of this relationship is I only talk with this person about money. I actually have a friend that, that actually fits into the bill. Like, the function of our relationship is we talk about financial growth, professional growth, and that's kind of it. That's the function of that. There's some emotional connection that happens as a by-product of that. It's not a sexual relationship. We're not interested in parenting, family of origin, or anything like that.” Jeremiah talks about the concept of relationship anarchy and how we can focus specific relationships on specific things. One relationship can not, and should not, fit all of our needs. This is why we have romantic and platonic relationships because they fulfill different needs within our lives.